LAWS(CAL)-2022-1-50

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED Vs. RAJEEV DAGA

Decided On January 21, 2022
AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Rajeev Daga Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the pendency of the suit, at the instance of the respondents/plaintiffs an order was passed by the learned interlocutory judge appointing a Special Officer to take physical possession of the demised premises. It appears that on 21/10/1993, the Special Officer proceeded to take possession at 4 p.m. He was able to take it by 6 p.m. on that day as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held by him. The appellant 's representative was not to be found in the property. It was locked. A watchman opened the door. Thereafter possession was taken. Mr. Saha, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant continued to keep their articles in the premises and took no step whatsoever to get the Special Officer discharged. From 21/10/1993 till 24/4/2014 physical possession was retained by him. On 25/4/2014 the respondents obtained its possession, from the special officer after the special leave petition against the division bench judgement of our court dtd. 5/12/2013, affirming the decree of the trial court dtd. 15/7/2013 directing eviction of the appellant was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court.

(2.) The learned single judge by his impugned judgment and order dtd. 11/8/2014 held that the respondents were so entitled to, as determined by the Special referee appointed by this court, in his report signed on 16/6/2014.

(3.) In 1989, a suit was filed by the respondents against the appellant claiming a decree for possession of 2886 sq ft. of the mezzanine floor along with the parking space in the courtyard of Anuj Chambers situated at 24, Park Street, Kolkata. The ground for eviction of the appellant was trespass. Standard Pharmceutical Ltd. was a monthly tenant under the respondents. This company in 1983 merged with the appellant and stood dissolved. The respondents alleged wrongful transfer by the Company to the appellant and accused the appellant of trespass into the premises. They claimed their eviction and mesne profits from May 1986.